June 11 Minutes – (Certified)
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee convened virtually at 10 a.m. ET on June 11, 2026.
In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 10 (codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1014), the meeting was open to the public from 10:00 a.m. to 12:40 p.m. Meeting materials are available on the Committee’s website https://www.archives.gov/ogis/foia-advisory-committee/2024-2026-term.
Committee members present at the meeting:
- Alina M. Semo, Director, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) (Committee Chairperson)
- Jason R. Baron, University of Maryland
- Nieva Brock, U.S. Department of Defense
- David Cuillier, University of Florida
- Whitney Frazier-Jenkins, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
- Sean O'Neill, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Information Policy (designee for OIP Director Sean Glendening)
- Elizabeth Hempowicz, American Oversight
- Scott Hodes, Department of Homeland Security
- Shelley Kimball, Johns Hopkins University
- Margaret Kwoka, The Ohio State University
- Frank LoMonte, CNN
- Marianne Manheim, Department of Health and Human Services
- Ryan Mulvey, Americans for Prosperity Foundation
- Richard Peltz-Steele, University of Massachusetts Law School
- Sarah Weicksel, American Historical Association
- Nick Wittenberg, representing requesters in FOIA's commercial fee category
Committee members absent from the meeting:
- Deborah O. Moore, Department of Education
- Sean Glendening, Department of Justice
Others present or participating in the meeting:
- Dan Levenson, Committee’s Alternate Designated Federal Officer, NARA
- Kimberlee Ried, Committee’s Alternate Designated Federal Officer, NARA
Opening Remarks from the Alternate Designated Federal Officer
Mr. Levenson opened the penultimate meeting of the 2024–2026 term of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee meeting and welcomed attendees. He noted that the meeting was being recorded and livestreamed on the National Archives YouTube channel in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and verified that a quorum was present, with 16 Committee members in attendance.
Mr. Levenson noted that Dr. Moore and Mr. Glendening were unable to attend. He welcomed Mr. O'Neill, who was attending as the Office of Information Policy Director's designee in accordance with the Committee charter. Mr. Levenson noted that NARA's Office of General Counsel had approved Mr. O'Neill's participation. He also noted that Ms. Brock was unable to keep her camera on during the meeting. He reminded attendees that the meeting agenda, presentation slides, and draft recommendations were available on the FOIA Advisory Committee webpage on the OGIS website and thanked the National Archives audiovisual staff for their support.
Welcome and Updates from the Chairperson
Ms. Semo welcomed attendees and noted the meeting was the tenth and penultimate meeting of the Committee's sixth term. She thanked Committee members for their continued dedication since the previous meeting on May 7, 2026, noting the significant work completed by the Committee's three subcommittees: the Volume and Frequency Subcommittee, the Implementation Subcommittee, and the Statutory Reform Subcommittee.
Ms. Semo advised that the Committee would receive updates from each Subcommittee and consider seven recommendations for discussion and Committee vote during the meeting. She also reflected on the Committee's progress, noting that four recommendations had already been passed during the current term: Statutory Reform Recommendations (SR) 1, 2, and 3, and 7.
Ms. Semo noted several housekeeping items: the minutes and transcripts from the April 2 and May 7, 2026, meetings had been posted to the Committee's website. She encouraged the public to follow the FOIA Ombuds blog for updates. She noted the meeting procedures for Committee members participating virtually. Members were asked to use the “Raise Hand” feature when wishing to speak, while the chat function was reserved exclusively for procedural and housekeeping matters in order to comply with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. She reminded participants not to use the chat for substantive discussion because those comments would not become part of the official meeting transcript. Committee members who needed to step away temporarily were instructed to remain connected to the meeting, mute their microphones, turn off their cameras, and notify the Chair and Alternate DFO via private chat if they would be absent for more than a few minutes. Members were also reminded to identify themselves by name and affiliation each time they spoke to ensure an accurate transcript and facilitate preparation of the meeting minutes.
Ms. Semo noted that written public comments could be submitted through the Committee's online public comment form and that all comments complying with the Committee's posting policy would be published. She also reminded attendees that a public comment period would be held at the conclusion of the meeting, with each speaker limited to three minutes per the Federal Register notice announcing the meeting.
Ms. Semo noted that there was only one meeting remaining in the current term, scheduled for July 16, 2026. The Committee would vote on its final report during that meeting. Ms. Semo expressed appreciation to the report working group for their efforts in preparing the Committee's final report.
She turned the floor to Mr. Levenson for several administrative updates.
Mr. Levenson addressed a question raised during the previous public meeting about the role of federal members of the Committee. He noted that, under the Committee''s bylaws, federal employees serve in their official capacities and are appointed based on their FOIA expertise and experience. They represent the federal government's interests, and are expected to exercise their individual professional judgment, while putting the government's interest ahead of their own personal interest.
Mr. Levenson noted the Committee's voting procedures, reminding members that any Committee member, including the Chairperson, may move for a vote. A second is not required under the by-laws but is traditional. He noted that voice votes would be used when appropriate, with roll call votes conducted if the outcome was unclear or not unanimous.
Mr. Levenson noted the nomination period for the 2026–2028 FOIA Advisory Committee term had closed on June 1, 2026, that nominations were under review, and that appointments would be announced later in the summer. He also noted that the meeting schedule for the upcoming Committee term had been published on the FOIA Advisory Committee website.
Ms. Semo asked if there were any questions. Hearing none, she proceeded with the Subcommittee reports and recommendations.
Volume and Frequency Subcommittee Report
Co-chairs: Mr. Wittenberg and Ms. Brock
Mr. Wittenberg expressed appreciation for the work of Dr. Kimball. Ms. Brock thanked both Dr. Kimball and Dr. Cuillier for their leadership and dedication before inviting Dr. Kimball to present the Subcommittee's recommendation.
Dr. Kimball noted that the Subcommittee had previously presented two draft recommendations but had elected to move forward with only one for Committee consideration. The other draft recommendation, which encouraged the next FOIA Advisory Committee term to build upon the findings of both the Implementation Subcommittee and the Volume and Frequency Subcommittee, would instead be incorporated into the narrative portions of the Subcommittee report and the Committee's final report.
Dr. Kimball presented the Subcommittee's draft recommendation VF-1, which read: “Federal agencies should align standard staffing levels and technological resources to meet the increasing levels of FOIA requests by analyzing existing backlogs, the volume and complexity of requests, and the workload assigned to employees. Specifically, agencies should consider the total work that includes requests and backlog and the capacity for employees to respond to these requests.”
Dr. Kimball summarized the Subcommittee's reasoning, noting that survey responses, focus group discussions, and recent FOIA reporting demonstrated continuing increases in agency backlogs, reductions in staffing at many agencies, and widespread concerns regarding insufficient staffing and technology. She noted that respondents consistently identified the need for additional staffing, improved technology, and a better understanding of the workload required to administer agency FOIA programs effectively.
Ms. Manheim asked whether similar recommendations regarding FOIA staffing and funding had been made during previous committee terms. She noted that staffing and resource concerns appeared to be recurring themes throughout the Committee's history and asked whether the current recommendation differed meaningfully from prior recommendations.
Ms. Semo responded that a preliminary review of the Committee's recommendation dashboard identified several staffing-related recommendations from previous terms, many of which had been referred to the Committee on Cross-Agency Collaboration and Innovation (COCACI), a committee of the Chief FOIA Officers Council.
Ms. Ried noted that Recommendation 2020-13 called upon agencies to review their FOIA staffing and technological capabilities to identify resources necessary to meet current and anticipated FOIA demands. She noted that the recommendation had been marked as completed because agencies had addressed the issue in their 2022 and 2023 Chief FOIA Officer Reports and because OGIS continued to monitor agency staffing and technology.
Dr. Kimball noted the existence of prior recommendations but emphasized that the current recommendation reflected significantly changed circumstances. She noted that substantial staffing reductions at many agencies, coupled with continued increases in FOIA backlogs documented through surveys, focus groups, and recent OGIS reporting, demonstrated that staffing and resource challenges remained significant and warranted renewed attention.
Mr. Wittenberg questioned whether it was appropriate for the Committee to make a recommendation addressing an issue that had been raised in previous committee terms.
Mr. Baron added historical context, noting that Recommendation 2020-20 had specifically urged Congress to address funding for agency FOIA offices. He noted that resource limitations had been a throughline across multiple terms of the FOIA Advisory Committee and had appeared in the committee's final reports.
Action Item: Ms. Brock moved for a vote on Recommendation VF-1 and Mr. Wittenberg seconded the motion. The recommendation was approved 16-0 with no abstentions.
Mr. Baron asked a follow-up question regarding the Volume and Frequency Subcommittee's report. Referring to survey responses discussed in the Subcommittee's narrative, he noted that some respondents had suggested amending the FOIA statute to address requests generated by artificial intelligence, including limiting requests to those submitted by human requesters. Mr. Baron noted that he did not support such a statutory change but asked whether the Subcommittee had considered developing a recommendation on the issue.
Dr. Kimball responded that the Subcommittee had discussed the topic and contemplated including it among issues for consideration by a future term. Because survey data became available relatively late in the Committee's term and the issue presented significant legal and policy complexities, the Subcommittee determined that there was not enough time to develop a recommendation. Instead, the Subcommittee chose to document the issue in its report so that it could serve as a resource for future committee deliberations.
Mr. Baron thanked Dr. Kimball for the explanation and suggested that the Committee's final report should highlight the point.
Implementation Subcommittee Report
Co-chairs: Mr. Baron and Ms. Manheim
Mr. Baron noted that the Subcommittee would present three recommendations for committee consideration. Dr. Kimball presented the first recommendation.
Recommendation I-1 read “To increase collaboration and connection among federal agency FOIA professionals, the Chief FOIA Officers Council’s Committee on Cross-Agency Collaboration and Innovation’s (COCACI) Resources Working Group, assisted by the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) and the Office of Information Policy (OIP), as appropriate, should establish a process for creating and maintaining small, self-governing cohorts of federal FOIA professionals interested in collaboration, support, and sharing of best practices.”
Dr. Kimball noted that Recommendation I-1 emerged directly from the Subcommittee's focus group discussions with federal FOIA professionals. Participants consistently expressed a desire for opportunities to connect with colleagues across federal agencies to discuss FOIA work and share best practices. In developing the recommendation, the Subcommittee talked with COCACI whose co-chairs endorsed the idea.
No committee members had questions regarding the proposal for such a collaboration network, which was presented at the May meeting.
Action item: Ms. Manheim moved for a vote on Implementation Recommendation I-1 and Mr. Baron seconded. Recommendation I-1 passed 16-0 with no opposition or abstentions.
Ms. Semo confirmed with Mr. O'Neill that he intended to vote in favor of the recommendation rather than abstain, since previous OIP representatives had occasionally abstained on Committee recommendations.
Dr. Weicksel presented Implementation Recommendation I-2, which read, “In an effort to increase the awareness and adoption of FOIA Advisory Committee recommendations, the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy should require status reporting from agencies on implementation of recommendations, either through questions in annual Chief FOIA Officer Reports or through another appropriate publicly available reporting mechanism.”
She noted that the Subcommittee's research indicated that increasing agency awareness of FOIA Advisory Committee recommendations represented one of the most effective ways to improve implementation. To accomplish this, the Subcommittee proposed the low-cost, low-effort solution of leveraging the existing Chief FOIA Officer Report process by recommending that the Department of Justice's Office of Information Policy (OIP) require agencies to report on the status of implementing FOIA Advisory Committee recommendations.
Ms. Brock asked what success would look like under the recommendation, specifically whether agencies would be expected to implement Committee recommendations or merely report on their status.
Dr. Kimball responded that the recommendation was intended both to improve transparency regarding agencies' consideration of Committee recommendations and to increase awareness of the Committee's work among federal FOIA professionals. She noted that previous CFO Reports had included questions referencing Committee recommendations, the inclusion of which had encouraged FOIA professionals to become more familiar with the Committee's work.
Ms. Hempowicz asked how the proposed reporting requirement would relate to the Committee's online recommendations dashboard, specifically whether agencies would report only on recommendations still considered open or also on recommendations previously marked as completed.
Mr. Baron noted that the recommendation was separate from the Committee's recommendation dashboard. Previous CFO Reports had successfully incorporated questions based on Committee recommendations. He noted that the 2025 cycle had included a question about the Committee's recommendations, which had generated more than 150 references to Committee recommendations. However, the 2026 reporting cycle did not include a comparable question, resulting in significantly fewer references to Committee recommendations. He noted that the recommendation was intended to restore this data collection rather than require agencies to implement specific recommendations. It would encourage greater visibility of the Committee's work while allowing OIP flexibility in determining how best to structure future reporting questions.
Mr. Baron noted that in a prior term, the Committee left discretion to OIP in determining how to phrase the question, and that this recommendation also leaves OIP room to determine how to go forward.
Action Item: Mr. Baron moved for a vote on Recommendation I-2. Ms. Manheim and Ms. Brock seconded the motion. The recommendation was approved by a vote of 15-0 with Mr. O’Neill abstaining.
Mr. LoMonte presented Implementation Recommendation I-3, which read: “To make recommendations more useful to agency FOIA professionals, the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) should create a resource for agency use presenting FOIA Advisory Committee recommendations in an easy-to-access manner, enabling FOIA professionals to quickly identify actionable improvements to their FOIA programs.”
Mr. LoMonte noted that focus group participants had reported difficulty navigating the growing number of FOIA Advisory Committee recommendations, which as of this term exceeded 70. The Subcommittee identified approximately 20 recommendations from all previous terms’ recommendations directed specifically toward federal agencies that could be actionable by agency FOIA professionals.
Based on this work, the Subcommittee recommended that OGIS develop an accessible resource organizing prior Committee recommendations in a manner that would be easier for agencies to navigate and use. He noted that the proposed resource would build upon categorization efforts begun during previous Committee terms and would present recommendations in a more practical, user-friendly format. Recommendations marked as “completed” on the dashboard would be included because many represented ongoing best practices that agencies could continue to improve over time rather than one-time actions.
Action item: Hearing no questions from committee members, Mr. LoMonte moved for a vote on Recommendation I-3, and Mr. Baron seconded the motion. The recommendation was approved by a vote of 15-0 with Ms. Semo abstaining.
Ms. Semo thanked the Implementation Subcommittee and Ms. Manheim expressed appreciation to all members of the Subcommittee.
Statutory Reform Subcommittee Report
Co-chairs: Ms. Frazier-Jenkins and Mr. Mulvey
Ms. Frazier-Jenkins noted that the Subcommittee would present three recommendations, two of which–Statutory Reform Recommendations SR-4 and SR-5–had been discussed during the previous meeting.
Mr. Mulvey presented SR-4, which read: “We recommend that Congress create a new ‘FOIA Court’ with specialized jurisdiction over FOIA claims.”
Mr. Mulvey noted that SR-4 had been revised in response to comments received during earlier Committee discussions. He thanked Mr. Glendening and Mr. Baron for their collaboration in refining the recommendation language.
Mr. Mulvey highlighted three principal revisions. First, while the Subcommittee continued to prefer an Article III (judicial branch) court, a properly structured Article I tribunal (created by the legislative branch to operate in the executive branch) could also serve as a viable alternative. Second, the recommendation's discussion of jurisdiction had been narrowed so that any expansion beyond FOIA claims would apply only to Privacy Act cases, reflecting the close relationship between the Privacy Act and FOIA as opposed to the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act. Third, the recommendation no longer expressed a preference regarding whether the specialized court should exercise exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction over FOIA cases. Instead, the explanatory language identified the issue as an important policy question for congressional consideration, because both approaches had advantages and disadvantages. These revisions were intended to accommodate a range of viewpoints and preserve the central recommendation that Congress consider establishing a specialized tribunal to adjudicate FOIA cases.
Mr. Baron noted that the revisions, particularly those reflected in Footnote 8 concerning jurisdiction over Privacy Act claims, addressed his principal concerns by preserving the possibility that cases combining FOIA claims with Presidential Records Act or constitutional claims could remain in U.S. district courts or otherwise be subject to concurrent jurisdiction. He noted the recommendation would likely receive significant support from judges serving on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, given the volume of FOIA litigation handled by that court.
Mr. Mulvey thanked Dr. Cuillier for his assistance in getting feedback from members of the federal judiciary and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Mr. Mulvey noted that judges, particularly those serving in the District of Columbia, had expressed support for the concept of transferring traditional FOIA cases from courts of general jurisdiction to a specialized tribunal with subject-matter expertise.
Action item: Ms. Frazier-Jenkins moved for a vote on SR-4, and Mr. Mulvey seconded. The recommendation was approved by a vote of 14-0 with Ms. Manheim and Mr. O'Neill abstaining.
Mr. Mulvey presented Statutory Reform Recommendation SR-5, which read: “Congress should amend FOIA’s judicial-review provision in three ways: 1. To reaffirm the statute’s de novo standard; 2. To specify the remedial authority of the courts, including the power to order an agency to comply with its affirmative disclosure obligations, provided that a requester has exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing suit; and 3. To reinforce that, for purposes of FOIA claims, a complainant’s injury-in-fact stems from an agency’s failure to comply with the statute.”
Mr. Mulvey noted that discussion of the recommendation had concluded abruptly at the previous meeting because of time constraints. He noted that the recommendation consisted of three related statutory proposals and that the first two components remained unchanged from the prior draft, while the explanatory language concerning standing had been expanded to reflect comments received during the previous committee meeting.
Ms. Brock reiterated comments she had made during the prior meeting, noting the view that the issues addressed in the recommendation did not appear to warrant congressional action.
Ms. Kwoka responded by noting that for the second part of the recommendation, clarifying judicial remedies for reading room claims could best be resolved through congressional action because the issue stemmed from differing interpretations of statutory language by the circuit courts. She noted that the existing circuit split created uncertainty regarding congressional intent. Only Congress could clarify the ambiguity, or the Supreme Court could weigh in.
Mr. O'Neill noted that he intended to abstain from voting on the recommendation. He questioned whether the third part was an actual problem in current FOIA litigation. He noted on part one that courts would likely continue to accord deference to agencies in certain contexts, such as matters involving national security, regardless of statutory language reaffirming de novo review.
Ms. Hempowicz responded that Congress frequently revisits statutory language to clarify legislative intent. She noted that even if statutory amendments did not alter existing judicial deference in certain contexts, legislative clarification could still provide useful guidance.
Mr. Baron noted the high quality of the recommendation's supporting analysis, noting it was exceptionally well researched and carefully drafted. He questioned whether the issues addressed by the recommendation represented sufficiently significant, government-wide concerns to warrant legislative action. He noted that the proposal differed from the Committee's previous recommendations, which had focused on practical improvements to FOIA administration, agency operations, staffing, technology, and implementation. Portions of SR-5, he noted, particularly parts two and three, addressed relatively legal questions more commonly debated in scholarly legal literature rather than encountered in day-to-day FOIA administration.
Mr. Baron also noted that he strongly supported reaffirming FOIA's de novo standard of judicial review, viewing it as a fundamental statutory safeguard. He expressed reservations regarding the recommendation's provisions addressing reading room remedies and standing, because those issues might instead be discussed in the Committee's final report. He noted that, while he did not oppose the proposal outright, he believed the recommendation would be stronger if limited to reaffirming the de novo standard.
Mr. Mulvey noted that the issue had not yet generated extensive case law but recent judicial decisions raised concerns within the requester community regarding standing under FOIA. He noted that he would be open to moving the standing provision into the Committee's narrative discussion if doing so would increase support for the remainder of the recommendation.
Mr. Mulvey noted his view that part two was the most significant component of the recommendation. He noted that one of the principal circuit splits in FOIA jurisprudence concerns the scope of judicial authority to compel agencies to publish records required under FOIA's reading room provisions. Clarifying congressional intent on this issue would resolve an important statutory ambiguity and promote more consistent application of the law. He noted that a substantially similar recommendation had previously been adopted by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), reflecting support from both government officials and administrative law experts.
Ms. Kwoka expanded upon Mr. Mulvey's comments, noting that the recommendation did not seek to resolve constitutional questions or substitute the Committee's judgment for that of the courts. Rather, the proposal simply encouraged Congress to clarify statutory language where judicial disagreement demonstrated uncertainty regarding legislative intent. She noted that providing Congress with recommendations concerning statutory clarification fell within the mission of the Statutory Reform Subcommittee.
Ms. Kwoka also noted that ACUS had previously endorsed a similar recommendation through a consensus process involving both government officials and non-government members. She cited the example of litigation involving the Executive Office for Immigration Review's publication of all Board of Immigration Appeals decisions, noting that although relatively few cases are litigated, the resulting disclosures can have substantial practical benefits for transparency and public access. Because Committee members expressed differing levels of support for the three components of SR-5, Ms. Kwoka suggested that the Committee consider voting separately on each component rather than as a single recommendation.
Mr. Baron noted that Ms. Kwoka and Mr. Mulvey’s remarks strengthened the rationale supporting the recommendation. He recommended that, if SR-5 passed, the Committee's final report should incorporate the substantive points raised during the discussion to provide additional context and justification for Congress. Mr. Baron again noted his broader concern that the Committee should continue striving for focused, impactful recommendations, noting the growing number of recommendations adopted across multiple committee terms and the challenges associated with implementation. If the recommendation were divided for separate consideration, he would support adoption of the first two parts while recommending that the third, concerning standing, instead be discussed in the Committee's report as an emerging issue for future terms to monitor.
Ms. Semo asked whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Committee charter, or the by-laws prohibited voting on portions of a recommendation separately. Alternate Designated Federal Officers Mr. Levenson and Ms. Ried confirmed that they found no such prohibition and noted that the decision rested with the Committee.
Mr. Baron expressed concern that voting separately on portions of the recommendation could create unintended consequences, particularly if a portion failed to receive approval and was interpreted as lacking merit rather than warranting additional consideration. He suggested that the Committee instead consider adopting only the first two parts of the recommendation while incorporating the third as a discussion item in the Committee's final report rather than as a formal recommendation.
Ms. Kwoka noted that the working group appeared receptive to that approach. She suggested that the working group could amend the recommendation by removing the third provision and incorporating it into the final report as an issue for future study.
Mr. Baron noted that the Committee had revised recommendation language before a vote in previous terms without requiring a formal motion for such editing but indicated he was willing to make a motion if necessary.
Ms. Semo proposed a brief recess to allow members of the working group to confer separately, since under FACA, a working group would not need a DFO to be present.
Following the break, Mr. Mulvey noted that the working group had reached consensus that rather than voting separately on the recommendation's parts, they could remove the third part and incorporate that material into the report. Mr. Mulvey noted that the Subcommittee report had intentionally remained incomplete pending the Committee's action on the recommendations and would be finalized following the meeting.
The amended SR-5 read: “Congress should amend FOIA’s judicial-review provision in two ways: 1. To reaffirm the statute’s de novo standard; and 2. To specify the remedial authority of the courts, including the power to order an agency to comply with its affirmative disclosure obligations, provided that a requester has exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing suit.”
Ms. Semo confirmed the amendments with the Subcommittee co-chairs and thanked the working group for reaching a consensus.
Action Item: Mr. Mulvey moved for a vote on the amended SR-5, and Ms. Kwoka seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 11-0, with Ms. Frazier-Jenkins, Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Hodes, Ms. Semo, and Ms. Brock abstaining.
Mr. Mulvey turned the presentation over to Dr. Cuillier to present SR-6.
Dr. Cuillier presented SR-6, which read: “Congress should allocate funding to commission a feasibility study to examine the costs and benefits of improving the FOIA support infrastructure to better serve taxpayers, records requesters and public agencies.” He noted it was built on a recommendation adopted by the Committee four years earlier calling for a study of alternative institutional models for administering and overseeing FOIA. He noted that although NARA and OGIS had attempted to secure funding for such a study, it had not been funded. The revised recommendation therefore asked Congress to appropriate funding specifically for a feasibility study rather than expecting NARA or OGIS to absorb the cost.
Dr. Cuillier noted three principal changes reflected in the revised recommendation. First, it explicitly requested congressional funding for the study. Second, it left open which entity would conduct the study, noting that responsibility could rest with OGIS, NARA, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), or another qualified organization. Third, it broadened the scope of the study to examine multiple structural models, including expanding OGIS's authorities, creating a new oversight entity, or strengthening and better coordinating existing organizations involved in FOIA administration. Dr. Cuillier emphasized that the recommendation did not advocate a specific model but instead sought an evidence-based examination of alternatives informed by comparative research conducted in the United States and abroad.
Ms. Kwoka noted that the working group had considered recommending specific institutional reforms but ultimately concluded that additional study was necessary before endorsing any particular approach. She noted that functions related to FOIA–such as technology, assessments and auditing–were currently dispersed across multiple agencies and organizations. The proposed study would evaluate whether consolidating or augmenting those functions could improve FOIA administration and identify the costs, technical requirements, and practical implications of different approaches.
Ms. Kwoka noted that her comparative research, including fieldwork examining Mexico's information commission and reviews of systems in numerous other countries, illustrated a range of possible institutional models. Although Mexico's constitutional reforms had since abolished its commission, she noted that the change reflected broader political developments rather than a judgment about the commission's effectiveness. The Committee's recommendation did not endorse any single model but instead called for a comprehensive study to determine which institutional arrangements, if any, would be feasible and appropriate for the federal government's FOIA system. The Committee had considered making direct recommendations to expand oversight functions but ultimately concluded that a feasibility study would provide a stronger evidentiary basis for future reform. She noted a range of oversight and administrative functions that could be evaluated, including government-wide FOIA technology platforms, auditing and assessment capabilities, requester services, public education, training, and administrative adjudication.
Mr. Baron asked for clarification on the range of outcomes the proposed study might ultimately recommend. He expressed concern that the recommendation appeared very broad.
Dr. Cuillier responded that the purpose of the recommendation was to encourage an objective study. He noted that OGIS had operated for many years with essentially flat funding while its workload had increased substantially, and it was an appropriate time to evaluate whether the existing structure remained effective. He noted that the study itself would determine what reforms were appropriate.
Ms. Kwoka added that, in her own view, expanding the authority and resources of OGIS would be preferable to creating an entirely new organization. Political and legal realities could make creating a new body less feasible. She noted that a government-wide FOIA platform might function as more than a public submission portal, becoming a comprehensive case management system supporting processing, referrals, appeals, and litigation, and facilitating training, public education, and oversight. She noted that these examples illustrated possibilities for study rather than predetermined recommendations.
Mr. Wittenberg expressed support for studying government-wide technological improvements, noting that agencies currently operate disparate systems that often cannot communicate with one another. Coordinating the approach is increasingly important because of complexity in records management, and a common infrastructure could improve referrals, and information management.
Mr. Baron reiterated his concern that the recommendation's broad scope could authorize consideration of sweeping structural changes extending well beyond a conventional feasibility study. The proposal potentially invited comprehensive reconsideration of the existing FOIA administrative framework, and he expressed discomfort with endorsing such an expansive mandate without more extensive deliberation by the Committee. He asked additional Committee members to share their perspectives on how the recommendation might affect FOIA administration across agencies.
Ms. Manheim noted that many prior Committee recommendations had consistently emphasized providing additional resources and support to OGIS. She noted that comparative research from other countries could offer useful insights, but the United States operates under a distinct governmental structure and foreign models could not simply be transplanted. Agencies have widely differing technological environments and operational requirements, making a single government-wide solution potentially difficult to implement. Additional study could be valuable, but the proposal represented a very broad undertaking whose scope warranted careful consideration.
Mr. Mulvey responded that the recommendation was intended to focus on previously identified reform areas rather than to authorize unlimited exploration of every conceivable change. He noted that the explanatory language referenced seven specific areas drawn from earlier Committee discussions and recommendations. The recommendation sought to encourage Congress itself to develop the expertise necessary to evaluate FOIA reform rather than directing OGIS to undertake the study. Providing Congress with independent information would strengthen future policymaking regardless of what reforms were ultimately considered.
Ms. Kwoka noted that earlier drafts of the recommendation had directly proposed expanding OGIS's authorities in several areas. Following extensive discussion within the working group, members concluded that an independent feasibility study was the more prudent course. The recommendation did not constitute an unrestricted invitation to redesign the FOIA system; it built upon a feasibility study recommendation previously adopted by the Committee. The recommendation represented a logical progression from the Committee's prior work and reflected significant collaboration in refining its scope and approach.
Ms. Semo noted that OGIS had supported a feasibility study during a previous Committee term and had made multiple unsuccessful attempts to obtain funding to conduct one. She noted that the current recommendation reflected lessons learned from that experience by shifting responsibility for commissioning and funding the study to Congress, which would be better positioned to allocate the necessary resources. Ms. Semo thanked the working group for considering OGIS's concerns and modifying the proposal accordingly.
Dr. Cuillier noted that the recommendation represented the next logical step after earlier efforts had failed to secure funding for a study. He noted concerns about leaving broad discretion to Congress regarding the study's eventual outcomes, but ultimately the recommendation simply sought to move the discussion forward rather than prescribe specific reforms. He noted that a study could ultimately result in significant recommendations or no changes at all. Exploring potential improvements was preferable to maintaining the status quo without further examination.
Mr. Baron reiterated his concerns that the commentary extended beyond recommending a feasibility study and appeared to invite broad structural reforms that had not been fully debated by the Committee. He suggested that the Final Report Working Group review and narrow the explanatory language to better align with the recommendation approved by the Committee. Mr. Baron also proposed circulating draft commentary among the Subcommittees before publication of the final report to allow additional review and input.
Mr. Mulvey asked for clarification regarding the Committee's voting procedure. Specifically, whether the vote applied only to the recommendation itself or also to the explanatory language in the final report.
Mr. Baron noted that he had not moved for any requirement about what the final report would include; he had only suggested that the drafting include input from the Subcommittees. He noted that the Committee traditionally votes only on the recommendation language appearing in bold, while explanatory commentary is subject to revision during preparation of the final report.
Ms. Semo confirmed that the Subcommittee retained discretion to revise or retain its explanatory language before submitting its final report.
Ms. Kwoka noted that the working group had intentionally attempted to balance two competing views: providing sufficient detail to guide a future feasibility study and avoiding language that would appear to predetermine its conclusions. Earlier drafts had been more prescriptive and the current version reflected efforts to accommodate differing viewpoints about the appropriate scope and possible outcomes of the study. The final report would have to grapple with those conflicting views.
Mr. Peltz-Steele stated that he supported the recommendation because it addressed what he viewed as a longstanding gap between the work that OGIS and the Committee could accomplish and the broader, resource-intensive examination of FOIA administration that remained necessary. Turning such matters over to Congress carried uncertainty, but he noted the recommendation appropriately sought to encourage a comprehensive review while recognizing that implementation would require careful oversight.
Ms. Semo confirmed there were no further comments and asked whether the Subcommittee wished to proceed with a vote on SR-6, which read: “Congress should allocate funding to commission a feasibility study to examine the costs and benefits of improving the FOIA support infrastructure to better serve taxpayers, records requesters and public agencies.”
Action item: Ms. Frazier-Jenkins moved for a vote on Recommendation SR-6, and Mr. Mulvey seconded. SR-6 passed 11-0 with five abstentions: Mr. Baron, Ms. Manheim, Ms. Brock, Mr. O'Neill, and Mr. Hodes.
Ms. Semo congratulated the Committee on its work. She noted that the Final Report Working Group had received valuable feedback that would inform revisions to the report before the Committee's final meeting.
Public Comments
Ms. Semo invited members of the public to provide oral comments and reminded attendees that written comments could also be submitted through the Committee's public comment process.
Mr. Levenson reported that no substantive comments had been submitted through the meeting chat, and after providing an opportunity for attendees to join the public comment queue, confirmed that it appeared no one wished to make oral public comments.
Closing Remarks
Ms. Semo stated that this term of the Committee had now completed its tenth public meeting, and she noted the majority of its work had taken place between meetings through Subcommittee and working group activities. She commended members for their collaborative approach, thoughtful deliberations, and willingness to engage respectfully on difficult issues. She also expressed special appreciation to the six Subcommittee co-chairs for their leadership and thanked all members for their volunteer service in support of government transparency.
Ms. Semo reminded attendees that the Committee's final meeting was scheduled for July 16, 2026, with the goal of distributing the draft final report by July 9 to provide members sufficient time for review and comment. She adjourned the meeting at 12:40 p.m.
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete on August 13, 2026.
/s/ Kirsten B. Mitchell
Kirsten B. Mitchell
Designated Federal Officer,
2024-2026 Term
/s/ Alina M. Semo
Alina M. Semo
Chairperson,
2024-2026 Term